nam/car (ani/wg/3) 3 del nam/car (rpbanip nam/car) 4.1 ... · ciudad de méxico, méxico, 4 al 6 de...

ANI/WG/3 — NE/17 4/03/16Tercera Reunión del Grupo de Trabajo sobre implementación de Navegación Aérea para las Regiones

NAM/CAR (ANI/WG/3) Ciudad de México, México, 4 al 6 de abril 2016

Cuestión 3 del Orden del Día: Seguimiento, evaluación de desempeño y monitoreo de las metas del Plan de

Implementación de Navegación Aérea Basado en la Performance para las Regiones NAM/CAR (RPBANIP NAM/CAR)

4.1 Informes de avance de los Grupos de Tarea y del ANI/WG ACTUALIZACIÓN DE ESTADOS UNIDOS SOBRE EL DOCUMENTO DE CONTROL DE INTERFAZ COMÚN DE

NORTEAMÉRICA (NAM ICD) VERSIÓN “E”

(Presentada por Estados Unidos)

RESUMEN EJECUTIVO Esta Nota y resumen presenta la información sobre Comunicaciones de datos entre instalaciones de servicios de tránsito aéreo (AIDC) del ICD de Norteamérica para la actualización del ICD a la versión “E”, la cual funciona como orientación principal para el intercambio de datos automatizados por sistemas de los Servicios de tránsito aéreo (ATS) automatizados de la Región Norteamérica y Caribe (NAM/CAR). Esta nota actualiza el documento de referencia dentro de la Región NAM/CAR, donde Estados Unidos y otros Estados miembros proveen las actuales y futuras AIDC de las Regiones de información de vuelo (FIR) a información de interfaces de las FIR.

Acción: La Acción sugerida en la Sección 3.

Objetivos Estratégicos:

Seguridad Operacional

Capacidad y eficiencia de la navegación aérea

Referencias: Iniciativas del Plan Mundial (IPM)

IPM‐9 – Conciencia Situacional

4º objetivo Regional de Performance (RPO): Mejora a la conciencia situacional

ANI/WG/3 — NE/17 — 2 —

1. Introducción 1.1 El creciente tránsito entre FIR requiere pronta mejora en la eficiencia y exactitud de los proveedores de Controlador de tránsito aéreo (CTA). Desarrollando un proceso armonizado y definiendo los protocolos para el intercambio de información entre varios Estados/Territorios y Organizaciones Internacionales dentro y a través de las Regiones, por lo tanto es imperativo alcanzar este objetivo. Ya que los proveedores ATS desarrollan sus sistemas automatizados, se debería tener consideración en reconocer las capacidades identificadas dentro de un ICD, el cual sirve para conocer los requerimientos de la Región. El AIDC en la Región NAM/CAR fue modelo de un ICD AIDC, el Doc 4444 — Gestión del tránsito aéreo actualmente apoya veintitrés (23) interfaces de miembros operacionales, NAM ICD documenta el protocolo de estas interfaces. 2. Discusión 2.1 El cambio de documento NAM ICD a la versión “E” dirige mensajes intercambiados entre Proveedor de servicios de navegación aérea (ANSP) y Control de áreas (ACC) por aeronaves con Reglas de vuelo por instrumentos (IFR). Dentro del NAM ICD, las unidades de operación ATS reenvían información de plan de vuelo y controlan información de unidad a unidad, así como los avances de vuelo. El uso del NAM ICD apoya la notificación, coordinación, y transferencia de fases de control señaladas dentro del Doc 4444 de la OACI, PAN ICD para AIDC Doc 9694‐AN/955 — Manual de aplicaciones de enlace de datos para los servicios de tránsito aéreo de la OACI. 2.2 La actualización de la versión “E” del NAM ICD (NAM ICD‐E) no cambia el intercambio automatizado de información por ninguna interfaz operacional. Los Estados miembros actuales del NAM ICD no deben implementar ningún cambio en apoyo del NAM ICD‐E. 2.3 Cambios, correcciones y activación, lo cual conformará las actividades del NAM ICD‐E, incluye:

• Transferencia de control radar de mensajes y soporte de gestión de interfaz o Estados Unidos – Canadá para iniciar la transferencia radar/ señalización

de desarrollo de mensajes para el apoyo de interfaces domésticas existentes

o Acuerdo de límites entre Estados Unidos – Canadá, la cual reflejará especificaciones de implementación de transferencia de control

o Implementación de la Interfaz de gestión de mensajes, incluidos mensajes de Gestión del espacio aéreo (ASM)

o Identificación/ requisito de apoyo de comunicación directa para la transferencia de control/señalización

• Señalización de mensajes radar incluidas como Capacidad de Clase 3 o Señalización‐ Básica incluida/ identificada para implementación o Señalización – Mejorada incluida para una futura implementación

• Instalaciones ATS de Nueva York, Oakland y Anchorage siendo incluidas como instalaciones NAM ICD emergentes de Estados Unidos interconectando con el Servicio de tránsito aéreo de Canadá (CAATS)

ANI/WG/3 — NE/17 — 3 —

• Mensajes suplementarios de Información anticipada sobre límite (ABI),

mensajes definidos de Cima de la subida/ Control de las operaciones aeronáuticas (TOC/AOC)

• Códigos erróneos expandidos (ver Apéndice únicamente en inglés) • Correcciones identificadas y corregidas • Acuerdos de límite de COCESNA con los ACC de La Habana y Mérida incluídos

2.4 El conjunto de mensajes de información de vuelo automatizado de Norteamérica encontrado en el NAM ICD se utiliza operacionalmente entre Estados Unidos y Canadá, Estados Unidos y México; Estados Unidos y Cuba, Cuba y México; COCESNA y México; y COCESNA y Cuba. Una de las fortalezas del conjunto de mensajes NAM es la adaptabilidad de la funcionalidad. 2.5 El conjunto de mensajes de información de vuelo automatizada permite que una interfaz automatizada sea construida con un mínimo de dos mensajes, conocidos como Clase 1. La Clase 1 consiste en el mensaje de plan de vuelo actualizado (CPL), el CPL y el acuse de recibo del mensaje; el Mensaje de acuse de recibo lógico (LAM). Mayores capacidades se encuentran disponibles en la Clase 2, construido a partir de la fundación de la Clase 1, agregando capacidades de enmienda pre‐salida y post‐salida, salidas cerca de la frontera e información específica del error en la información sobre mensajes fallidos. 3. Acciones Sugerida 3.1 Se invita a la Reunión a:

a) Tomar nota de la información y el resumen producida en esta Nota de Estudio; b) apoyar las medidas y aprovechar las lecciones aprendidas por los Estados

miembros para alcanzar la meta de un sistema de Gestión de tránsito aéreo constante y globalizado utilizando el NAM ICD; y

c) observar los éxitos del intercambio reciente de información automatizado utilizando el NAM ICD y las capacidades de Clase 1, 2 y 3 que define.

— — — — — — — —

Federal AviationAdministration 0

North American (NAM) Common Coordination Interface Control Document (ICD) Version ‘E’ Update

Presented To: ICAO ANI/WG3By: Dan Eaves, AJV-724Date: April 2016

Federal AviationAdministration

APÉNDICE ANI/WG/3-NE/17


ATS Interfacilty Data Communication (AIDC)

• The ATS Interfacilty Data Communication (AIDC) NAM ICD Version ‘E’ document change addresses messages exchanged between Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSP) or Area Control Centers (ACCs) for IFR aircraft. Within the NAM ICD, ATC operations units forward from unit to unit, as the flight progresses, necessary flight plan and control information. NAM ICD usage supports the Notification, Coordination, Transfer of Control phases outlined within the ICAO Doc. 4444, Pan Regional Interface Control Document (PAN ICD) for ATS Interfacility Data Communications and (AIDC) ICAO Doc 9694-AN/955 Manual of Air Traffic Services Data Link Applications.

• The described functionality is adept at supporting radar and mixed domestic transition environments more than the traditional AIDC message set which is more attuned to oceanic operations where more controller interaction is required. In most NAM interoperability environments, radar is the operational norm and non-radar the exception where in traditional AIDC non-radar is more the norm and radar is the exception.

-A2-


ATS Interfacilty Data Communication (AIDC)• AIDC is the overarching technology for automated data exchange between Air

Navigation Service Providers (ANSP) in the world. Under the AIDC Functionality mantle there exists three distinct protocols for Flight Information Region (FIR) interfacility data exchange.

• AIDC, NAM ICD and European Online Data Interface (OLDI) applicationsunder AIDC Functionality

• In the North American, Central American and Caribbean (NACC) Region NAM and AIDC protocols are used in AIDC Technology and automated data exchange interfaces.

• Both NAM and traditional AIDC protocols support the defined notification, coordination and the transfer of communications and control functions to different degrees between ATSUs. Full AIDC capability also supports extended equipment capabilities in time and distance based operations where different separation minima are being used in adjacent airspace. The NAM ICD has included automated radar handoff messaging within the document as a future goal of cross border capability.

-A3-


ATS Interfacilty Data Communication (AIDC)

• In the North American, Central American and Caribbean (NACC) Region AIDC and NAM protocols are used in AIDC Technology interfaces.

• The NAM ICD is the subject of this update.

-A4-


North American Common Interface Control Document(NAM ICD)

• NAM ICD Cross Border Automation has been implemented between 5 member states and 23 NACC FIRs in US, Mexico, Canada, Cuba and Honduras (COSESNA) providing the opportunity for seamless interfaces between adjacent ATC systems. Operational NAM ICD Interfaces Include:

• Canada – US 14- North America Domestic 11 - Alaska 2- Oakland Oceanic (ATOP) - Vancouver ACC

• Mexico - 7- US -Mexico 5- Cuba - COCESNA

• Cuba – 3- US -Miami - Mexico (Merida)- COCESNA

• COCESNA - 2- Mexico (Merida)- Cuba (Havana)

-A5-


North American Common Interface Control Document(NAM ICD) History

• Within the North American Aviation Trilateral (NAAT/5) Canada, Mexico, and US agreed to cooperate on development of a seamless interface between automation systems, focusing on automated exchange of ICAO flight data. Radar/surveillance operations is the key environment targeted by the NAM ICD protocol

• NAM ICD was based on ICAO 4444, North Atlantic Common Coordination ICD and Pacific Common Coordination ICD

• ICD outlines current and long-term guidelines for harmonized development of automation systems

• ICD is designed as a living document that will be updated to reflect the needs of the member states

• Automation interfaces in Mexico, Canada and Cuba offered opportunity for utilizing enhanced interfaces to FAA’s En Route Automation Systems

-A6-


NAM ICD Evolved from 4444, AIDC ICDs

ICAO 4444ICAO 4444ICAO 4444

PAN ICD (NAT & PAC)AIDC ICDs

-A7-


NAM ICD Version ‘E’

-A8-


NAM ICD Update – Version E

• The NAM ICD Version ‘E’ (NAM ICD-E) update does not change the automated data exchange conventions for any existing operational interface. Existing NAM ICD member states do not have to implement any changes in support of NAM ICD-E.

-A9-


NAM ICD Continues to Evolve with Version ‘E’

-A10-


NAM ICD Version E Has Been Drafted & Is Under Review

ICAO 4444ICAO 4444

ICAO 4444

PANAIDC ICD }ICAO 9694

-A11-


NAM ICD and Automation Task Force• Within North American Aviation Trilateral (NAAT/5) Canada, Mexico &

U.S. agreed to cooperate on development of seamless interface between countries and automation systems

• Focus on automated exchange of ICAO flight data with goal being ‘voiceless’ handoff

• NAM ICD defines message formats for implementation of interfaces between automation systems:

• U.S. & Mexico 2008

• U.S. & Canada 2009

• Cuba added in Dec 2011

• COCESNA added two interfaces 2015

• Same standard used as guide for Caribbean flight data automation compatibility

• International neighbors installing new systems and look to maximize benefits of their automation investment

-A12-


Automated International BoundariesAnchorage

ArcticFIR

OaklandOceanic

FIR New YorkOceanic

FIR

EdmontonFIR

Magadan OceanicFIR

Magadan/SokolFIR

(Petropavlovsk Kamchatski and Magadan ACCs)

FukuokaFIR

ManilaFIR

Ujang Pandang

FIR

NauruFIR

(Brisbane)Port Moresby

FIR NadiFIR

AucklandFIR

TahitiFIR

Mazatlan Oceanic

FIR

MexicoFIR

Bermuda

San JuanFIR

PiarcoFIR

Santa MariaOceanic

FIR

GanderOceanic

FIR

ShanwickOceanic

FIR

GanderDomestic

FIR

MonctonFIR

VancouverFIR

Honolulu HCF

Guam CERAP

Habana FIR

Santo DomingoFIR

CuracaoFIR

Port-au-PrinceFIR

HoustonOceanic

FIR

KZWY

KZBW

KZDC

KZJX

KZMA

KZLA

KZAK

KZSE

MontrealFIR

TorontoFIR

WinnipegFIR

AnchorageContinental

FIR

Murmansk OceanicFIR

Miami Oceanic

FIR

AnchorageOceanic

FIR

Interface KeyNAMAIDCNAS

COCESNAFIR

-A13-


ICAO 4444 Coordination EnvironmentsNAM ICD and AIDC

• ATC procedures vary significantly, depending on the surveillance capabilities of the coordinating ATS units in a given boundary environment. For the purpose of ICAO 4444 Appendix 6, the coordination environments are identified as either surveillance or procedural.

• In some instances the same type of message may require the inclusion of different or additional data to accommodate the demands of differing environments. Depending on the environment, the timing of the transmission of these messages may also vary. The environment may also affect whether the AIDC message is automatically processed, or displayed to the controller for manual processing.

A surveillance environment is an environment where an ATS surveillance system is in use, and allows controllers to positively identify the traffic. Radar and/or ADS-B are available to the controllers at sector positions on both sides of a common boundary, and traffic is identified by information presented on a situation display. Such facilities permit surveillance coordination procedures to be used.

• A procedural environment exists in those areas where surveillance coordination procedures are not available because at least one of the coordinating ATS units does not have a surveillance capability, or the surveillance capabilities differ. For example, surveillance in oceanic and remote areas is often achieved with ADS-C, CPDLC or voice position reports; in such areas, coordination procedures differ from those used in a surveillance environment.

-A14-


North American (NAM) Common CoordinationInterface Control Document (ICD) Revision E

• The NAM ICD Version ‘E’ 28 February 2016 document change addresses messages exchanged between Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSP) or Area Control Centers (ACCs) for IFR aircraft. Within the NAM ICD, ATC operations units forward from unit to unit, as the flight progresses, necessary flight plan and control information. NAM ICD usage supports the Notification, Coordination, Transfer of Control phases outlined within the ICAO Doc. 4444, Pan Regional Interface Control Document (PAN ICD) for ATS Interfacility Data Communications and (AIDC) ICAO Doc 9694-AN/955 Manual of Air Traffic Services Data Link Applications.

-A15-


NAM ICD Version ‘E’Overview

• While the surveillance environment is the standard for NAM ICD operations, it is also recognized that procedural environments existbetween some Air Traffic Service Units (ATSU).

• Providing ATC units the ability for voiceless radar handoff and radar point out as well as message support for procedural transfer of controlprogresses the application’s ability to apply standardized automation in both radar/surveillance and procedural environments.

• This approach is consistent with the goal to reduce the need for verbal coordination per ICAO Doc 4444, Chapter 10, in Section 10.1.

-A16-


NAM ICD Version ‘E’Overview (continued)• Radar Handoff messaging and Interface Management Support

• US – Canada to Initiate Radar Handoff/Point Out messaging development to support existing domestic interfaces

• US – Canada Boundary Agreement will reflect Handoff implementation specifics

• Implementing Interface Management Messages, ASM message added

• Identification/support of Direct Communication requirement for Handoff/Point Out

• Radar Point Out messages added as Class 3 capability

• Point Out – Basic Added/Identified for Implementation

• Point Out – Enhanced Added for Future Implementation

• New York , Oakland and Anchorage ATOP facilities being added as emerging US NAM ICD facilities interfacing with Canada CAATS

• COCESNA added as member state

• Supplemental Messages ABI, TOC/AOC messages defined

• Appendix ‘A’ Error Codes Expanded

• Corrections identified and corrected

• COCESNA Boundary agreements with Havana and Merida ACCs added

16

-A17-


NAM ICD Version ‘E’ Handoff and Point OutOverview (Continued)• In continuing support for the radar/surveillance efficiency and migration toward non-

verbal ANSP to ANSP automation within current and future interfaces, NAM ICD-E update will support system development of radar handoff messages. Radar Handoffmessaging has been defined in the NAM ICD since its inception as well as the direct communication interface requirement to support the capability

• Additionally, NAM ICD-E will incorporate radar Point Out messages into Class 3. By enhancing Class 3 to include point out messages the operational boundaries between ATSUs are better served by incorporating more options for surveillance supported coordination capabilities within the context of the NAM ICD.

• In keeping with the NAM ICD philosophy to provide incremental ‘stepping stone’ functionality options, the NAM ICD-E lays the foundation for both Basic and Enhanced Point Out. The US and Canada have agreed to implement Point Out - Basic messaging capability to provide the automated flight data to accompany verbal cross border point outs. Point Out automation procedures must be defined in bilateral ATS agreements which describe data information and/or any supplemental automation text to be used with verbal point outs.

-A18-


NAM ICD Version Comparison

Version E Version D

-A19-


NAM ICD Version ‘E’ Boundary Agreement Additions

-A20-


Support for Automated Handoffs

• Class III Handoff• Proposing development with Canada for CAATS – ERAM

handoffs and technical processing specifics• Includes NAS-like cross-border handoffs

• Class III handoff utilizes messaging capabilities of Class I & II developed in Host and ported to ERAM

• Handoff messages will mirror NAS messages and include:• Radar Transfer Initiate (RTI) • Radar Logical Acknowledgement (RLA)• Radar Track Update (RTU)• Radar Transfer Accept (RTA)

• Handoff capabilities require integrating technical & operational aspects of automated aircraft transfer with support of RDP processing

-A21-


NAM ICD Version ‘E’Enhancements

• Notification, Coordination and Transfer of control• The capability to revert to verbal coordination and manual (or implicit)

transfer of control shall be retained.

• Notification – FPL, ABI

• Coordination – CPL LAM , enhanced: MOD, EST , FPL, LRMPOI,POA,POJ

• Transfer of Control – Manual Handoff/Automated Handoff• Automated Handoff

• Radar Transfer Initiate (RTI) • Radar Logical Acknowledgement (RLA)• Radar Track Update (RTU)• Radar Transfer Accept (RTA)

• Automated Transfer• Transfer of Control (TOC)• Acceptance of Control (AOC)

-A22-


NAM ICD Version ‘E’Changes

• Changes, activations and corrections which will make up the NAM ICD-E activities include:

• Radar Handoff messaging and Interface Management Support

• Radar Handoff/Point Out messaging development to support existing domestic interfaces

• Boundary Agreement would reflect Handoff implementation specifics

• Implementing Interface Management Messages, ASM message added

• Identification/support of Direct Communication requirement for Handoff/Point Out

• Radar Point Out messages added as Class 3 capability

• Point Out – Basic Added/Identified for Implementation

• Point Out – Enhanced , Added for Future Implementation

• Supplemental Messages ABI, TOC/AOC messages defined

• Appendix ‘A’ Error Codes Expanded

• Corrections identified and corrected

-A23-


NAM ICD Version ‘E’Detailed

• While the surveillance environment is the standard for NAM ICD operations, it is also recognized that procedural environments exist between some Air Traffic Service Units (ATSU).

• In continuing support for the radar/surveillance efficiency and migration toward non-verbal ATSU to ATSU automation within current and future interfaces, NAM ICD-E update will support system development of radar handoff messages. Radar Handoff messaging has been defined in the NAM ICD since its inception as well as the direct communication interface requirement to support the capability.

• Automated radar Handoff can be supported by implementing existing Interface Management Messages with the addition of a ‘system heartbeat message’, also used in AIDC.

• Additional codes to better identify errors in cross border automated data exchange have been proposed for the Appendix ‘A’ Error Message Table amendment when LRMs are used.

-A24-


NAM ICD Version ‘E’Detailed – Supplemental Messages• Several NAM ICD messages previously categorized as ‘future’ will be upgraded to

‘current’ for optional development. The ABI, TOC and AOC messages borrowed from AIDC message set will be categorized as ‘supplemental’ and may be used to support procedural or hybrid interfaces.

• The NAM ICD-E supplemental messages are anticipated to be used in traditional procedural-based operational environments. These messages are not considered Class I, II or III messages but are supplemental NAM messages only developed by cross border FIRs when specifically agreed to address specific interface goals. These are not normal operations type messages.

• The ABI message is a notification phase message transmitted to provide information on a flight to the receiving ATSU. The purpose of the ABI is to synchronize the flight plan information held between two ATSUs. The TOC and AOC are procedural environment messages sent to propose the transfer of control of a flight to the receiving ATSU who accepts the non-verbal transfer with the AOC. This transfer of control message is normally used between ATSU facilities where procedural separation is being used and radar handoff is not a viable option for i transfers. Bilateral agreements will outline TOC/AOC operational use.

-A25-


Extending the US Automation Standard

• Compatibility management between existing/emerging international automation systems essential to optimize capabilities & meet user needs

• U.S. centralized geographic position requires taking the lead to assure compatibility is maintained between member states

• FAA also participates in Caribbean & South American (CARSAM) ATC automation ICD development

• Near term countries with interface/ enhance interface initiatives pending

• US - Dominican Republic• US - Bahamas • US – Cuba• COCESNA – Mexico (Merida)• COCESNA - Cuba (Havana)

-A26-


Cross Border Communication

• Upgrade current AFTN to Internet Protocol (IP) and AMHS service

• Direct IP service through NADIN MSN Replacement required

• AMHS/FTI/NADIN is scheduled to extend the IP support for the other ERAM – CAATS interfaces to NAV CANADA and SENEAM interfaces within the near term; waterfall currently being worked

• MEVA III is being looked at to support enhanced capabilities between the US and NACC partners for future interface support

-A27-


CONCLUSION

• Substantial progress has been made in interfacing between the NACC neighbor countries but more can be done to increase automation compatibility and efficiency . NAM ICD Version ‘E’ updates the region’s automation interface capabilities and adds future messaging possibilities for mixed environment support

• Candidates for next steps include but are not limited to the following:

• New Interfaces between adjacent ANSPs

• Improving Interfaces between adjacent ANSPs

• More advanced message sets

• More support for direct routes across boundaries

• Involvement of ATC system vendors to increase compatibility

• Integration of compatible NACC automation

• Handoff/Point Out

• This automation activity has a direct benefit on our collective ability to provide more efficient and seamless service to our users.

-A28-

nam/car (ani/wg/3) 3 del nam/car (rpbanip nam/car) 4.1 ... · ciudad de méxico, méxico, 4 al 6 de...

Documents